Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
With Dr Rex Rogers

Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 27 August 2010

Several megachurches, in West Michigan and nationally, are getting mixed reviews in response to their decision to forgo Sunday services Christmas morning.

Many people have praised leaders in these churches for their sensitivity to family interests. Still others have criticized what they consider a lapse in spiritual commitment and a loss of a spiritual opportunity. Some people believe churches that close their doors on Christmas morning are simply demonstrating common sense, while other people are accusing these churches of kowtowing to secularist trends. Some people think churches planning to close on Christmas morning are admirably displaying a “big view of God and his work in the world.” Meanwhile these same churches are being cited for contempt of Christian tradition, irreverence, and a direct violation of “What would Jesus do?”

What seems lost in most of the commentary I have read is mutual respect and a consciousness that “each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” And, therefore, that we should “stop passing judgment on one another.”

Whether to hold church services on Christmas morning is a classic Christian liberty issue if there ever was one. So Christians in any given church ought to be given the space to make a decision about when they schedule services without having their faith called into question.

Scripture tells us that we should “not give up meeting together” (Hebrews 10:25), but nowhere does the Word of God mandate how often per week and on what day of the week we should gather for worship. When we meet, where we meet, how often we meet, what times we meet, how our services are structured, how long the services last—all these matters are left to our devising. Our patterns are more cultural than doctrinal.

Most of the churches that plan to dispense with services Christmas morning are also planning special or additional services during this coming week or the days after Christmas. So they will offer more spiritual programming during the Christmas season than less. Criticizing these churches, then, simply on the basis of their closed doors on Sunday morning seems self-righteous and legalistic. Citing one’s own plans to attend church on Sunday morning as a basis for one’s criticism is not much better. That tactic is what some might call “holier than thou.”

Some people have also accused No-Service-Christmas churches for “placing God second and families first.” This is an oft-repeated but not always applicable argument. In other words, it is possible to worship or to lift up something in our lives other than God. People do this everyday. It’s called idolatry, and we do it with everything from materialism, to recreation and hobbies, food, sex, golf, you name it.

It’s also possible to engage in an activity other than church, Christian service, ministry, etc. and honor God by doing so. Scripture tells us that “whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). Scripture also says that Christ should be given the place of “supremacy” in all things (Colossians 1:18). So here’s how that works: It’s possible to go to church on Christmas Sunday morning with a carnal heart and in no way glorify God and in no way give him supremacy in what we are doing. It’s also possible, in fact divinely expected, for us to “put God first” in whatever we are doing (as long as our activity does not itself violate the moral will of God).

We don’t need to go on a guilt trip wondering if God is in third, second, or first place. He’s always supposed to be in first place “in” and “through” everything we are doing. If he is, then the rest of our priorities will take care of themselves.

In the Old Testament, through the prophet Samuel God reminded King Saul, “To obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Samuel 15:22). Meaning: a contrite worshipful heart trumps religious ritual every time. Saul never got it.

God further clarified this truth a bit later in the appointment of the shepherd King David, saying “the Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

On Christmas Sunday morning God will look not so much at whether we are in church as whether we have the right heart toward him.

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 26 August 2010

Leadership and optimism go hand in hand. At least that’s what surveys and experience repeatedly indicate. Del Jones’ review in today’s edition of “USA Today” of recent surveys, CEO commentary, and scholarship found that leaders were more optimistic than others about almost everything at work. He quotes leadership guru, Warren Bennis, saying, “Optimism is all about possibilities, change, hope. Without those qualities, how can any leaders succeed?” General Dwight D. Eisenhower would have agreed.

In his excellent work, Eisenhower: Soldier and President, late historian Stephen E. Ambrose noted that General Eisenhower saw two advantages in maintaining a cheerful and hopeful attitude when he spoke to his troops, one, the “habit tends to minimize potentialities within the individual himself to become demoralized,” two, it “has a most extraordinary effect upon all with whom he comes in contact. With this clear realization, I firmly determined that my mannerisms and speech in public would always reflect the cheerful certainty of victory—that any pessimism and discouragement I might ever feel would be reserved for my pillow. I adopted a policy of circulating through the whole force to the full limit imposed by physical considerations. I did my best to meet everyone from general to private with a smile, a pat on the back, and a definite interest in his problems.”

From a Christian perspective, optimism is a product of hope. In my book, Christian Liberty: Living for God in a Changing Culture, I talked at some length about optimism and hope:

"A hope is only as good as its foundation or focus. Christian hope—a confident expectation of fulfillment—is based upon an objective source of divine personality, strength, and power in Jesus Christ. It is not, therefore, a vain, irrationally conceived, frivolous human wish but a rational confidence in something real. Christian hope rests upon truth revealed in Christ, truth experienced in the Christian life, and truth expected in the coming of Christ's kingdom.

Christian hope operates between the extremes of fatalism on the one hand and utopianism on the other. Modernity's mentality was dominated by naturalistic humanism, optimistically espousing permanent growth and well-being in a secular leap of faith. Postmodernity, on the other hand, is witness to a new, desperate, if not nihilistic mentality that is uncertain about the future, technology, or life itself. The modern mentality dreamed of progress. The postmodern mentality has given way to pessimism, even panic. Neither Mod nor PoMo culture has an answer for death. A Christian hope rejects both positions as unwarranted and unbiblical extremes.

In the words of a popular Christian song, “because Christ lives, we may face tomorrow.” Our hope is grounded in a person of the Godhead and in an already accomplished historical event: Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. The promise of our deliverance in time and ultimate reconciliation with Christ in heaven is sure. We may believe and, therefore, we may have hope.

Certainly a Christian can neither be an unqualified optimist nor an unqualified pessimist. Philosophic humanists generally embrace one extreme or the other, because they have no basis as Christians do for intellectually assimilating both good and evil. Christians should be optimistic though not with the irrational faith of the evolutionary theorist or the blind faith of Western culture in the idea of progress. Neither should any Christian ever be a pessimist. Pessimism is reserved for those who have not hope.

A Christian's optimism must be tempered by realism. The world and humanity are fallen and cursed. Evil continues, abated only by the restraining power of the Holy Spirit and God’s common grace. All of us are sinners in need of redemption. And realism serves as a warning against temptations to triumphalism. Humility, not bravado, must characterize the Christian hope. Christians should be both optimistic and realistic, or “optimistic realists.”

As optimistic realists with a well-developed Christian worldview, Christians should evidence humble hope and confidence in a culture that no longer believes either one is possible. If we do this, our lives become books with a message our neighbors can read, one that points them to the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Hope produces resolve in the face of obstacles and resiliency in the wake of troubles, all of which are indispensable characteristics for a leader.

Christian leaders above all should be hopeful people, men and women who inspire their followers to do great things for God in an age hungry for real leadership, real ethics, and real hope.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 26 August 2010

Iraq’s experiment with democracy today is heartening. In an election that should give them their first full-term Parliament since Saddam Hussein was toppled, the people of Iraq turned out in remarkably high numbers, braving curfews, security, road closures, border closings, threats of insurgency violence, and more.

Is it possible for this ethnically, religiously, and politically fractious society to come together in a free, pluralistic and democratic state? President George W. Bush says, “Yes.” Most of us don’t know. All of us hope so.

For democracy to succeed it needs more than free, fair, and legal elections. It needs a culture that respects the rule of law, individual dignity and liberty, and freedom of conscience and expression. It needs people who believe in truth and justice, who respect property rights, who value free enterprise, and who above all recognize freedom of religion. It needs a people who understand something about the separation of church and state, even if it is not much more than the rather noisy, imprecise version found in the United States. For democracy to succeed, it needs a people who believe in a better tomorrow and who are willing to work together to achieve it.

Let’s hope and let’s pray that the Iraqi people’s new symbol of freedom, purple ink-stained fingers, will point the way to a workable, governable peace between long-standing enemies.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 26 August 2010

“Syriana,” executive producer George Clooney’s latest cinematic offering, is being widely praised by critics as one of the best films of the year, a thinking person’s film. I hope people are thinking---first, to skip this film, and second, if they do choose to see it, to recognize its leftist message.

“Syriana” is directed by Stephen Gaghan and contains some interesting acting performances by Clooney, Matt Damon, Amanda Peet, Jeffery Wright, and Christopher Plummer. The acting is good, but the story insofar as there is one leaves a lot to be desired. It’s an “R” rated film for language and violence, particularly a Clooney torture scene you don’t want to see (I closed my eyes).

I don’t go to the movies very often, but recently I saw “Narnia” and now “Syriana.

While these two movies could not be more different in tone and message, I’d tongue-in-cheek classify both as “fantasy adventure.” I enjoyed the first movie while I nearly walked out of the second. The first encouraged my heart. The second gave me a headache.

“Syriana” offers a convoluted, difficult-to-follow, choppy storyline, about greed and corruption in the American oil business and the United States government. In the “Syriana” view, virtually everyone is corrupt, except possibly for certain poor Arabic individuals. According to the film, these people’s poverty was caused by American greed, so they have “understandably” been drawn into extremist religious groups. These extremists eventually resort to terrorist acts against American interests as, according to the movie, the only thing they can do to make their political voice heard.

The CIA gets into the corruption act by assassinating an heir to his country’s throne, apparently because he is interested in elevating his people through enlightened means and is less friendly than his brother to U.S. interests. In the end of the film, American oil tycoons receive awards and Middle Eastern religious extremists become suicide bombers. The video symbolism is hard to miss: Americans succeeded by skewering others.

Everyone turns on everyone in this film. Clooney’s character is a U.S. agent who discovers he’s been “used” by his government employer—throughout his career. Damon’s character is an energy analyst who sides with the idealist prince, apparently with no qualms about his American roots or loyalties. Wright’s character looks for closeted skeletons to make a show of due diligence and to use as leverage against people, including one of his own attorney colleagues. Peete’s character turns against her husband, while Plummer’s character is a manipulative oil man. And so it goes.

The message of this film appears to be this: “The United States government and American “Big Oil” will do absolutely anything to protect oil interests and profits, including lie, steal, assassinate, or go to war. No one in government or in business tells the truth or can be trusted.”

So you walk out of this film with your anxiety about geo-politics in the real world having just jumped several notches. You no longer feel you can believe anything anyone says. You feel used, abused, dirty, and despairing.

While there undoubtedly have been and are dishonest and unscrupulous government and business people, this film paints with a very broad brush. It feels like Oliver Stone or Michael Moore directed it rather than Stephen Gaghan. It’s a “postmodern” film in that it offers us little beyond uncertainty and angst—because truth doesn’t exist.

Nowhere in this film will you find any intelligent notation or discussion of free enterprise, the multi-varied roots of religious extremism, American patriotism, people-who-hate-America-because-America-is-prosperous, or any other non-politically correct idea.

This film not only tells its story poorly, it tells a poor story. The critical acclaim “Syriana” is receiving tells us much more about the critics’ political perspective than it does the film’s cinematic achievements.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 26 August 2010

The White House left the word “Christmas” out of its Christmas card text—something it has done since 1993—so some conservatives are interpreting this as one more example of the “war on Christmas.”

The White House card quotes Psalm 28:7 and sends to 1.4 million recipients “best wishes for a holiday season of hope and happiness.” Apparently this isn’t good enough for some members of the Religious Right, including William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative website WorldNetDaily.com. Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, doesn’t like it either, but he thinks it’s more a sign of political correctness run amok than an effort to side-step Christmas.

I noted on December that “Christmas is Back,” because retailers nationally are re-introducing Christmas to their holiday marketing campaigns. Meanwhile, President George W. Bush can’t catch a break from his conservative base. First Harriet Miers and now the wrong Christmas card—it seems the man can’t do anything right.

As I said earlier, it’s possible to over-react, and I think conservatives or Christians or both may be doing it with this latest bit of noise. The truth of Christ and the power of the Gospel as introduced in the Christmas story are not going to be lost if someone happens to omit the words, “Merry Christmas,” on a card.

For years I have made sure that Cornerstone University’s Christmas card includes Scripture, because this makes our cards distinct from most public university cards and clearly sends a message about our Christian mission. I have not worried about whether the card used the term “Christmas.” Is this word really more powerful than the Word?

The other side of this is that President Bush represents all the people, not just Christians and not just conservatives. He is open about his own faith, but he rightly does not force his beliefs upon others. A White House Christmas card with an Old Testament verse and a “Happy Holidays” message strikes me as more respectful of others than disrespectful of Christianity.

I think the Religious Right should spend its time on positive contributions that matter and give its watchdog inclinations a rest.

Details: Written by Rex M. Rogers; Published: 26 August 2010

First Sirius pays Howard Stern $500 million to take his vulgar, obscene, profane, and pornographic version of entertainment to satellite radio and now cell phone companies are getting into the pornography act. Cingular Wireless, the nation’s largest cell phone provider, is taking steps to match its access devices to Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association content ratings standards, opening the door for mobile porn.

Communications companies are eyeing the $10 billion per year pornography business in the United States, and they want a part of the action. With a move to cell phone video sex the country is taking another step toward a virtual culture of pornography. More than 800 million pornographic videos and DVDs are rented by American consumers each year. Pay-per-view movies in hotel rooms now account for the largest portion of in-room entertainment revenue at major American hotel chains. Pornographic videos on automobile DVD players are becoming more common. Of course Internet pornography is the second largest business in cyberspace, running behind only gambling.

Pornography is one of those things that is difficult to describe, but everyone knows it when we see it. Pornography flourishes under the umbrella of free speech protection. It’s been difficult for some time and becoming increasingly so to make a case for legally restricting another adult’s entertainment choices or “freedom of expression.”

But a society does have a compelling interest in the impact of pornography upon the individuals caught in its web and upon the moral climate of any given community. Insofar as pornographic activities destroy lives and degrade communities, legal restriction seems warranted. The question is, where do we draw the line?

In the end, it’s a matter more of the individual heart than government regulation. Howard Stern may hold forth on satellite radio, but I don’t have to subscribe. Internet pornography exists, but I don’t have to access it. Pornographic DVDs may be available, but I don’t have to rent them. Cell phone pornography may soon be marketed, but I don’t have to buy or view it.

When I was a kid, pornography was only available in a magazine or book you had to purchase in a store in full view of the public. Then, you had to get rid of the evidence before a sister, mother, or some other village adult gave you a comeuppance. Now, pornography is virtually universally available, accessible, affordable (much of it is free) at anytime anywhere in as much privacy as you choose. Now, you’re only two clicks away at any given time.

So pornography is increasingly pervasive, but it’s still personal.

Start
Prev
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
Next
End

Two New eBooks at Amazon Kindle!

Subcategories